Friday, April 19, 2013

A black knight in action

When I became a member of my local gym, it was to exercise my body - not my human rights. But that's exactly what I'm doing with the Kentish Town Sports Centre in north London.

The venue, owned by fitness company Better in association with Camden Council, attracts hundreds of people from all sections of society: religious, atheist, male, female, young and old. There is no dominant demographic. Everybody is welcome and everybody gets on.

But not everybody is equal. Because, in an age of political over-correctness, they ban all men and boys for 442 hours every year - simply because they are male.... Several weeks ago, I formally complained to the general manager, asking him to change the policy with one of three alternatives: A) maintain a women’s hour but introduce a men's alternative for fairness, B) keep women’s hour (and only women’s hour) but annually charge men less, or C) scrap single-gender sessions altogether.

Hardly controversial. After all, if demand for women-only sessions is so great then the gym should put their money where their mouth is and fund it themselves. Unsurprisingly, they declined.

This is how you do it. It's simple. Learn the law and then hold women and their white knights accountable to it.

They have women's only gyms in the US; it's called Curves. They tend to fail, as a business, miserably.

I work in the fitness industry and I have come to realize one thing. The best way to make money is to give women a feeling they are accomplishing something, without actually having to work for it. An appearance of sweat, but not much more than that (as a Zumba instructor, I suspect this is one reason why Zumba is popular, few of them work that program to the maximum benefit.)

Women will keep coming back for that, week after week, never accomplish their weight or fitness goals, and keep forking over the money.

Very occasionally, they may stop to ponder why they aren't smaller, faster, or stronger than they were when they began giving the money, but then they remember their feeling, and they keep coming back.

Pay a shrink or a pay a gym. Shrink probably costs less in the long run and has a quit any time policy. But, the gym is a great place to look at guys really getting work done. Hmmm, haw. Hail to the Hamster! Both, I say.

+1 for the Black Knights, I do believe this kind of action is necessary to make philosophical points in our age, but I find that this strategy contradicts Libertarian ideals that seem to indicate businesses can conduct whatever discriminatory policy they want because it is their property. If banning men for 442 hours a year doesn't hurt their business, then so be it, and if someone disagrees with the policy, they can and should find another gym for membership.

this strategy contradicts Libertarian ideals that seem to indicate businesses can conduct whatever discriminatory policy they want because it is their property.

His proposals do not contradict (stupid ass, worthless, irrelevant to the real world) libertarian ideals. Indeed, he is supporting libertarian ideals by forcing the gyms to remove the rules that arbitrarily restrict men.

A - No objection for business setting its own policies. However, if men don't have full access to the gym (same number of hours) as women, men shouldn't have to pay full amount. To black knight in the spirit of many group-favor policies would be to insist men have access to the "woman-only" hours. However, to make the better more rational point, reduced fees for men or scrapping restrictions on men make more sense.

I find that this strategy contradicts Libertarian ideals that seem to indicate businesses can conduct whatever discriminatory policy they want because it is their property.

You appear to be operating under the mistaken impression that you make the rules. You do not. Your opinion and your ideals are irrelevant. You can only PLAY by the rules. So learn them and play by them.

When that happened at my gym, I simply demanded (and received) a refund for the time remaining on my membership and dropped out. When I joined, there were no such restrictions. Changing the rules to ban men on certain days breached the contract I'd made with the owner. The gym owner could conduct whatever discriminatory policy he wanted, but not at my expense.

KJE, I don't disagree with your point over all but with the detail. I've got only antecdotal evidence with some back up from my understand of Gary Taube's ideas on nutrition but I do think women (and men) can benefit from the right kind of diet and exercise program. The problem is that, as you said, the fitness and nutrition industries are far more interested in making a buck than promoting healthy habits. They really don't care that the vast majority of people aren't benefiting from what they are promoting.

I go to a gym that combines high-intensity cardio (kickboxing style workous) with strength training (resistance bands) and a low-carb diet. Virtually everyone who adopts the program for the 10 week intro gets results, even dramatic ones. I didn't join with any specific goal in mind and was surprised at the amount of weight I lost with only a moderate amount of effort.

I think you're exactly right that Zumba/Jazzercise/Yoga give you a feeling of a 'high' after a session but cardio alone doesn't do enough to knock off pounds or inches. Most women seem to be averse to any kind of strength training for fear of looking like Ahnuld (more the men=women with different plumbing idea, not realizing that women lack the hormones to develop pronounced musculature), and the typical low-fat high-carb weight-loss diet is basically chick-crack. I've yet to meet a woman who wasn't addicted to carbs even if they thought they were being healthy by eating tons of fruit, sweetened yogurt, pasta, etc.

He missed an option. Demand a similar set aside of "men only" hours from the gym. And A? The point just went over your head. He is dealing with the business on a business level. A contract was made. The establishment changed said contract and as a party to the contract he demanded a rectification BASED on the original contract. The business can refuse to comply with his offered solutions but contractually are obligated to respond or refund his money. I see no contradiction with libertarian philosophy. As a mater of fact, this is it in its essence.

There's a local hill here that's a popular hike. It's a bit steep and is a truely grueling afternoon climb.

One time my son, 8 at the time, and I were on our way down and passed a late 20-something hot chick and her boyfriend on their way up. The girl was crying, she couldn't go on and couldn't figure out why "because she works so hard in her spin class".

This "ladies night" or "ladies hour" thing is pretty common. Bars have it. Clubs have it. Fitness establishments have it. If men started to complain about in en masse, I wonder what the result would be? Though truthfully, I think most men don't want to bring themselves down to the level of pathetic-ness of women, so I'm not sure black knighting will ever catch on. It would be interesting to see the feminist response if it did.

I'd have to disagree about "bring themselves down to the level of pathetic-ness of women". Standing up and refusing to allow a breach of contract, which this is, go without challenge is very much a male, alpha thing. Demanding the imposition of such a requirement or the attempt to impose it and ignore the consequences of the breach (hoping it will go away) is the passive-aggressive position. If I was renting an apartment and the landlord suddenly said "No, that isn't enough for this month because I raised the rent by $200 dollars. Yes, despite the lease agreement.", I'd raise a ruckus. Same thing.

Why in the hell do women have this desire to work out in a gym with no men? Am I missing something here? I go to the gym, put on my headphones, lift heavy stuff and go home. Many of the women I see working out do the same. Is there some subset of women who want the smell of men in the air but no actual men in the room? When I first heard of women only gyms I asked female friends this question and they said that it's nice to work out in a place where men aren't ogling them. But have you seen the women at Curves? Cows. So that can't be it.

Why in the hell do women have this desire to work out in a gym with no men?

Think about a man working out. Seriously working out. . . . .

Sorry, I losT my train of thought. Anyway, they are very serious. They have that look in their eye, they walk with determination, they are focused and have purpose. That line about being ogled is mostly just an excuse (though it does sometimes happen) but it's mostly just that the women are intimidated. It's not something most women are used to and they don't like it. They can't understand that the men are not there intimidating them (solipsism) rather that they are just in a testosterone fueled place and are getting it done. The men would mostly be happier without the women there getting in the way (though most do not mind women at all who know what they are about).

Why in the hell do women have this desire to work out in a gym with no men?

This has nothing to do with gyms, or membership, or ogling. It is about empowerment. Women as a class have been taught by feminism that they are oppressed so, as a class, they will always seek to empower themselves over men. This has nothing to do with the situation, or reason, or logic, or hos they feel about their bodies. It is only about power. They will seek it to the limits of their abilities, always and forever.

That is, of course, until men put a stop to it.

And one strong man is enough. Feminists hate this fact with every fibre of their being. They also hate the fact that try as hard as they might, they can't change it. Deep down, they don't hate men or love women...they hate the fact that a thousand strong women at the top of their game will never be able to dominate one strong man at the top of his.

With this sort of irrational hatred, their power plays must of course become more and more outrageous. Discrimination is a given - feminism was never about equality. Eventually a tipping point must be reached when men will accept it no more. This this time has now arrived.

Shouldn't men be allowed to form men-only fitness clubs? If the answer is yes, then why are we supporting this guy? I don't think it's a right course of action to engage in nihilism for the sake of irritating the powerful.